Taking digs at DIGG

Remember growing up when you and your friends would be playing baseball or basketball or football or whatever and a call would go against the villain of the piece who would simply reply, "Fine, I will just take my ball and go home"? You had a very uncomfortable choice. You could stand on your principles, have the correct call stand, and not play...or you could let them get their way even though it was wrong and keep playing. Not an easy decision when you are a kid.

Fortunately, most of us grow up and mature. We stop playing the "I will just take my ball and go home" nonsense...we buy our own ball.

Or we become DIGG users. DIGG is a site where the articles are written by the users. That I am on board with. It is a good thing. We know what is news to us because it is stuff written by us about things we are interested in...less "news" about who got booted off American Karaoke last night (yes, their names were on the "news" a couple days ago), fewer articles about Anna Nicole Bimbo and the ongoing saga of which tramp got her pregnant and more about stuff we care about that actually matters.

Unfortunately, much as in our youth, the person with the finances to provide the ball then somehow thought that meant s/he could establish the rules of the game and nothing except his wishes mattered, so some DIGG users feel that whatever they feel like putting out there is fair game.

Chester Millisock is a fine example. He posted a "news story" that violates copyright law and common decency. He wants to show you how you can steal a nice product. Oddly, the people from whose pockets he was stealing objected and demanded his "story" be taken down. Like any other child who did not get their way he threw a fit to get his way...and so did a lot of other users. So the illegal code was reposted.

This has no possible good outcome. It seems likely DIGG will lose in court, be bankrupted, and this forum will close down. If not then the industry will have to either find a new way to protect themselves or shut down. I have serious doubts such a lucrative industry will shut down. So they will research other means...and where do you think those costs will land? Reach into your back pocket or purse, take out your wallet...yup. Right about...there.

Fortunately Millisock has a quite reasonable (you might read the previous word with a hint of sarcasm in it...) take on whether he should be allowed to post something: "If the majority decides something is true, then it's the truth," says Millisock."

Pretty much why the world actually was flat for several thousand/million years and the planets were in rigid stratospheres and scraped against each other when they passed. It was only when a few voices blew hot air into them that the earth began to fill up to its present round shape, becoming more round as each succeeding believer joined until at last the balance tipped as 50%+1 person believed it, expanding the circumference from the formerly flat ball into the shape as we now know it. It is a good thing most of the people believed it or the world might still be flat. (I wish I could insert those smilies in here because at this point I would put in the one where he rolls his eyes).

The majority does not always get what is right. Take, for example, slavery...remember when the majority of the world believed that was correct? Or, more recently, remember how the shape of the heads of black people proved they were inherently stupid? Yeah, that is 20th century belief as evidenced by the majority.

News flash; majority belief does not equal truth. (fortunately). And the majority of people you personally know wanting something does not make it right, either.

Of course, the initial attempt of DIGG to do something wild and crazy such as...oh, I don't know...obey international copyright law caused such great consternation for Millisock that even though he got his way (and will probably bankrupt the site) he had this to say in gratitude: "What users are after is a Web site where they can submit stories and just the users can decide what is important," says Millisock. "That is still the ideal."

Thanks for showing you still miss the point. How about what is legal? For example, you could easily have posted a story stating there are people out there who wish to (illegally) copy HD DVDs and it is possible to insert code into your DVD player to make this possible.

By the way, here is one of the great ironies: I am frustrated by some of those protections. I am a heavy user of, for example, of my music cds. I listen to them in my car, while running, at my computer, in my room, and so forth. There is a heavy debate out there; if I bought a CD of say...Jimmy Hendrix and I only like 1 song, let's say...Purple Haze, I also purchased a Weird Al cd and only want say...Amish Paradise can I, having purchased them, rip them to my computer, mix my own cd from these two artists and listen to that in my car? The record companies would say (unless they have changed their tune VERY recently) no I cannot do that. To do that I must purchase each song individually for my I-Pod and put them on there and listen to them through one of those devices that lets you listen to your i-pod in your car. I would argue I purchased the song and can listen to it in whatever format I desire. So in many ways I am on the side of Millisock. Unfortunately, we all know that is not the primary use the majority of people make of it. So it is a multi-sided battle with a lot of overlapping issues and interests that may have no clear conclusion. But this I know...it is going to get uglier and the more people showing the lack of understanding he showed with his first quote make the most noise...the uglier it is going to be.